Ex Parte Weiner et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 8, 2010

11016076 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 8, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte ALLISON LEIGH WEINER and GOPAL B. AVINASH
__________

Appeal 2009-007482
Application 11/016,076
Technology Center 2100
__________

Decided: March 8, 2010
__________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-14 and 17-24. Claims 15 and 16 are
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2009-007482
Application 11/016,076

2
Invention
The invention relates to the automated classification of data entities
(Spec. ¶ [0001]).
Independent claim 14 is illustrative:
14. A computer-implemented method for mapping data
entities comprising:
accessing a plurality of data entities potentially
having attributes of interest, the data entities
including structured and unstructured data entities;
classifying the structured and unstructured data
entities based upon a predefined domain definition
including a plurality of classification axes, a
plurality of classification labels for each axis, and
an association list of attributes associated with the
axes and labels to classify data entities having
attributes corresponding to the axes and labels; and
storing the classification in a computer memory.
References
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence in
support of the rejections:
Miller US 6,611,630 B1 Aug. 26, 2003
Gerstl US 2004/0030723 A1 Feb. 12, 2004
Chitrapura US 2004/0111438 A1 Jun. 10, 2004
Conover US 2004/0153467 A1 Aug. 5, 2004
Ferguson US 6,820,094 B1 Nov. 16, 2004
Maren US 2005/0038805 A1 Feb. 17, 2005
Faybishenko US 7,099,871 B2 Aug. 29, 2006
Anonsen US 7,191,182 B2 Mar. 13, 2007
Appeal 2009-007482
Application 11/016,076

3
Rejections
Claims 1-12 and 19-21 are provisionally rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
over claims 1-13 and 17-19 of co-pending U.S. Application No. 11/016,081
and Ferguson.
Claims 23 and 24 are provisionally rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
over claims 1, 20, and 21 of co-pending U.S. Application No. 11/016,081
and Conover.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ferguson and Maren.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Ferguson, Maren, and Chitrapura.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Ferguson, Maren, and Miller.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ferguson, Maren, and Conover.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Ferguson, Maren, and Gerstl.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Ferguson, Maren, and Faybishenko.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Anonsen and Maren.
Appeal 2009-007482
Application 11/016,076

4
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Chitrapura and Maren.
ISSUE 1
The Examiner finds that Ferguson and Conover both teach defining an
association list of attributes associated with axes and labels and classifying
the identified data entities in accordance with the corresponding attributes
(Ans. 5-6).
Appellants submit that the “claims are believed to be patentably
distinguished . . . with respect to the prior art rejections [and] respectfully
request withdrawal of the double patenting rejection[s]” (App. Br. 11).
Issue: Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in
concluding that co-pending U.S. Application No. 11/016,081 and either
Ferguson or Conover would have taught or suggested claims in the present
application?
ISSUE 2
The Examiner finds that Maren “teaches . . . data entities including
structured and unstructured data entities” (Ans. 7).
Appellants submit that “Ferguson creates an STG [data storage] file
for each new document prior to any searching activity [while] Maren
requires that metatags, used to classify the indexed documents, are created
during the search process” (App. Br. 13-14).
Issue: Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding
that the Ferguson and Maren references would have been combinable?
Appeal 2009-007482
Application 11/016,076

5
ISSUE 3
The Examiner finds that Anonsen teaches “[d]efining a domain
including a plurality of classification axes, a plurality of classification labels
for each axis, and a plurality of attributes of the labels, at least one [of] the
axes being identical to a respective label of a different axis and having labels
corresponding to attributes of the respective label” (Ans. 20).
Appellants argue that “Anonsen uses a structured file, the EntityKey,
to categorize and retrieve stored data [while] Maren allows inputs from
several data sources, including live and stored data which may be structured
or unstructured” (App. Br. 20).
Issue: Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding
that the Anonsen and Maren references would have been combinable?
ISSUE 4
The Examiner finds that Chitrapura teaches “[d]efining a multi-level
domain including a plurality of nested classification levels and attributes
associated with at least one of the levels, each level including a plurality of
subclassifications, classifications of at least one level being identical to
subclassifications of at least one lower level” (Ans. 22).
Appellants submit that “Chitrapura discloses a system where [a]
preliminary step uses the document to establish a dictionary D . . . structured
information [from which] the entire classification is then derived” (App. Br.
21).
Appeal 2009-007482
Application 11/016,076

6
Issue: Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding
that the Chitrapura and Maren references would have been combinable?
ISSUE 5
The Examiner finds that “[h]ierarchies provide a ‘conceptual zoom’ in
that they allow a user to ‘drill down’ through classification levels to find
more detailed classification levels” (Ans. 33).
Appellants argue that Chitrapura “does not appear to disclose any
feature analogous to the recited ‘substantially identical classifications and
subclassifications providing a conceptual zoom for classification of data
entities’” (App. Br. 22).
Issue: Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding
Chitrapura and Maren would have taught or suggested substantially identical
classifications and subclassifications providing a conceptual zoom for
classification of data entities?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
1. Ferguson teaches a “categorization utility 159 [that] continuously
searches through the STG file directory . . . for documents that
match the category criteria associated with [a set of] smart
folder[s]” (col. 7, ll. 24-27).
2. Ferguson teaches that “STG file 310 [is] associated with the
document D4” (col. 5, ll. 58-59).
Appeal 2009-007482
Application 11/016,076

7
3. Ferguson teaches that “STG file 200 may . . . contain a data field
220 which reflects the raw text associated with the corresponding
document. The raw text is primarily used for indexing purposes”
(col. 4, ll. 15-17).
4. Maren teaches the indexing and classification of “structured, semi-
structured, and/or unstructured text” (¶ [0032]; fig. 1).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Double patenting
The judicially-based doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting is
grounded in the public policy preventing the unjustified extension of patent
exclusivity beyond the term of the patent. In re Zickendraht, 319 F.2d 225,
232 (CCPA 1963) (Rich, J. concurring).
Obviousness
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-
18 (1966).
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results,”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007), especially if the
combination would not be “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
Appeal 2009-007482
Application 11/016,076

8
ordinary skill in the art,” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
ANALYSIS
Issue 1
Appellants request withdrawal of the Examiner’s double patenting
provisional rejections. However, Appellants do not provide arguments or
evidence to show error in the Examiner’s conclusions. Since Appellants do
not show error, and since the Examiner has not withdrawn the provisional
rejections between these two applications filed on the same day, we affirm
the provisional rejections pro forma.
For at least these reasons, we find that Appellants have not sustained
the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence
persuasive of error in the Examiner’s obviousness-type double patenting
provisional rejections of claims 1-12, 19-21, 23 and 24.
Issue 2
Based on Appellants’ arguments, we will decide the appeal with
respect to Issue 2 on the basis of claim 14 alone. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants dispute the Examiner’s use of the combined teachings and
suggestions of the Ferguson and Maren references. We find Appellants’
arguments unpersuasive.
Both Ferguson and Maren teach categorization of date entities
(FF 1, 4). In categorizing data, Ferguson uses an STG file that is associated
Appeal 2009-007482
Application 11/016,076

9
with a document (FF 2). This STG file may contain raw text associated with
the corresponding document (FF 3). Whether the STG file itself is
structured or unstructured is unimportant. Both the document and the raw
text associated with the document are data entities. Ferguson uses the raw
text for indexing purposes (id.). Maren teaches that both structured and
unstructured text can be indexed and classified (FF 4). Therefore, it would
have been obvious to an artisan to modify Ferguson to classify both
structured and unstructured text.
We find that it is irrelevant whether the indexing methods of Ferguson
and Maren are compatible. Maren’s teachings about indexing and
classifying structured and unstructured text are not restricted to Maren’s
particular indexing method.
For at least these reasons, we find that Appellants have not sustained
the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence
persuasive of error in the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims
1-14 and 19-24 with respect to this issue.
Issue 3
Appellants dispute the Examiner’s use of the combined teachings and
suggestions of the Anonsen and Maren references. We find Appellants’
arguments unpersuasive.
Maren teaches indexing and classifying structured and unstructured
text (FF 4). Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Anonsen
teaches or suggests a domain that includes classification axes, labels, and
Appeal 2009-007482
Application 11/016,076

10
attributes, where at least one of the axes is identical to a respective label of a
different axis and has labels corresponding to attributes of the respective
label (Ans. 20). Therefore, we find that Anonsen and Maren would have
taught or suggested indexing and classifying structured and unstructured text
using the domain as recited in independent claim 14.
We find no relevance in whether the data of Anonsen is structured or
unstructured, live or stored. Appellants do not show that the Anonsen’s
domain is incompatible with Maren’s indexing and classification method.
For at least these reasons, we find that Appellants have not sustained
the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence
persuasive of error in the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim
17 with respect to this issue.
Issue 4
Appellants dispute the Examiner’s use of the combined teachings and
suggestions of the Chitrapura and Maren references. We find Appellants’
arguments unpersuasive.
Maren teaches indexing and classifying structured and unstructured
text (FF 4). Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that
Chitrapura teaches or suggests a domain that includes a plurality of
classification levels and attributes associated with at least one level, each
level including a plurality of subclassifications, classifications of at least one
level being identical to subclassifications of at least one lower level
(Ans. 22). Therefore, Chitrapura and Maren would have taught or suggested
Appeal 2009-007482
Application 11/016,076

11
indexing and classifying structured and unstructured text using the claimed
domain.
Whether the data of Chitrapura is structured or unstructured, and
when data is indexed, is irrelevant. Appellants do not show that the
Chitrapura’s domain is incompatible with Maren’s indexing and
classification method.
For at least these reasons, we find that Appellants have not sustained
the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence
persuasive of error in the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim
18 with respect to this issue.
Issue 5
Appellants challenge the Examiner’s finding that Chitrapura and
Maren would have taught or suggested Appellants’ claimed conceptual
zoom. We agree with the Examiner.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Chitrapura
teaches or suggests the claimed domain limitation, which includes a plurality
of nested classification levels having identical classifications and
subclassifications (Ans. 22). Thus, we conclude that Chitrapura and Maren
would have taught or suggested indexing and classifying data entities (FF 4)
using a plurality of nested classification levels having identical
classifications and subclassifications.
Such nested classification levels provide multiple levels of
classification granularity. Therefore, Chitrapura and Maren would have
Appeal 2009-007482
Application 11/016,076

12
taught or suggested substantially identical classifications and
subclassifications providing a conceptual zoom (multiple levels of
classification granularity) of data entities.
For at least these reasons, we find that Appellants have not sustained
the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence
persuasive of error in the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim
18 with respect to this issue.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Appellants have not demonstrated:
1. that the Examiner erred in concluding that co-pending U.S.
Application No. 11/016,081 in combination with either Ferguson or Conover
would have taught or suggested claims in the present application (Issue 1);
2. that the Examiner erred in finding that the Ferguson and Maren
references would have been combinable (Issue 2);
3. that the Examiner erred in finding that the Anonsen and Maren
references would have been combinable (Issue 3);
4. that the Examiner erred in finding that the Chitrapura and Maren
references would have been combinable (Issue 4); and
5. that the Examiner erred in finding Chitrapura and Maren would
have taught or suggested substantially identical classifications and
subclassifications providing a conceptual zoom for classification of data
entities (Issue 5).
Appeal 2009-007482
Application 11/016,076

13
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decisions provisionally rejecting claims 1-
12, 19-21, 23, and 24 under the judicially-created prohibition of
obviousness-type double patenting.
We affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1-14 and 17-24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc

Patrick S. Yoder
FLETCHER YODER
P.O. Box 692289
Houston TX 77269-2289